|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:43
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Jan A. Kolshus |
| Subject: |
Anti-grav may still be slightly correct |
| Question: |
I just read a bit around here and someone may allready have caried this torch, but I just thought I should mention it. I realize it can be said to be immaterial, but I feel that if my logic is right, it is indeed substantial, at least semantically.
In your propulsion page on this site, you state that: "It is highly unlikely that these type of devices effect gravity in any way." Well actually in one way, it isn't.
As you are probably well aware Einstein's theories of relativity (and don't ask me whether it is the specific or general one, I never remember which is which) can conclude with the fact that for all relativistic purposes, the gravitational effect, the G-force caused by acceleration is for all purposes equal in function to the normal gravitational force. So if a gyroscopic propulsion unit in any way causes G-forces by acceleration, those G-forces are no less of a gravitational force in the eyes of relativistic theory. The only way the gyro could be causing the lift he got in his experiments, would be if the gyroscope caused a constant counter gravitational acceleration, albeit actually too small to actually take off.
Since this is a force resisting gravity by acceleration, which as Einstein stated for all extents and purposes are relativistically equal to gravitation, one could in fact be said to have a gravitational device and as it conters gravitation, perhaps even counter gravitational. |
| Date: |
23 October 2007
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/10/2007 00:34:50
| | | Jan,
With that definition, a rocket, maybe planes, and even throwing objects upward may be classified as Anti-grav or counter-gravitational.
I don’t completely disagree, but it does not require an innovative device.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 09/03/2008 08:33:25
| | | Jan,
Yes, general relativity successfully describes gravity geometrically, and ultimately as nothing more than an acceleration field. For this reason, gravity is a fictitious force just like acceleration. Although anti-gravity is often perceived as a synthetic gravitational wave that cancels terrestrial gravity, it should be noted that the only force known to move the center of gravity of a closed mass system without either the expulsion of matter or the interaction with an external mass system is gravity. It therefore follows, that the generation of a unidirectional acceleration field is geometrically identical to the generation of a gravity field, and would thus be capable of displacing a closed mass system.
This would be very different from a rocket which moves a mass by expelling it's mass at a given velocity, or a jet plane that expels heated gas. What is most interesting, is that most force precession propulsion designs exhibit the interaction of at least two acceleration frames which can combine to form a third which can be made to move the entire closed mass system.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
